Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful legacy-route and deprecation context beyond annotations, but does not detail runtime behaviors like rate limits or JS-rendering caveats that a crawl tool might have.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and legacy context, then deprecation guidance, then the docs link. It is slightly redundant between the deprecation sentence and the 'Prefer extract' sentence, but every sentence closely relates to correct tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a fully documented schema, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: deprecation status and the preferred alternative. It is nearly complete, lacking only optional operational caveats for a legacy web-crawling route.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, js, wait, and format with examples and enums. The description only mentions the return format generally, adding no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Crawl), resource (public URL), and output (plain text or HTML) and explicitly names the sibling alternative (extract). An agent can distinguish this legacy tool from extract and other search/fetch tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says the SDK marks webCrawl deprecated in favor of extract and advises 'Prefer extract for new integrations,' while noting this tool exists for legacy route parity. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.